Alaska and the EPA regarding wood burning

That article is much better then the other one, if burnt correctly you can't tell a non EPA stove by looking at the smoke coming out of the chimney, I can burn mine with no smoke what so ever except on startup.

 

But that is an important point IMHO.

 

Doh!
I had read several other versions and didn't bother to read his link.
My bad.

 

I'm not a fan of the epa or their massive over reach , but it seem's that the new compliant stoves my friends have really throw out more heat. I can't say from experience, my last wood stove was plain & simple (non compliant) and now I use a indoor "gasification" wood boiler that has taught me a lot about what happens when wood burns & how to burn what usually is sent up the chimney.

 

The EPA stoves are good. The hybrid stoves are amazing

 

Curious why it made you chuckle, the new york times article got it right:

/quote The E.P.A. could declare the entire area to be in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year, with potentially huge economic implications, including a cutoff of federal transportation funds. /end quote

Decemberist I was not offended by your posting of the article, I am glad you posted it, it started a great discussion. I was offended by the way it was written. I am upset that you find my real world observations to be ignorance. I did not make my statements up from thin air. I grew up in an area where what I stated was a reality. Ignoring that reality is part of what I find offensive in the article.

Boomstick I would have to know your exact reason for not updating to attempt to answer your question. As I stated above my post was based on real world observations and experiences that may or may not translate to the area in question. I did not create the society I observed so please do not call it mine.

 

This thread has left me scratching my head, it looks like the article in the first post skewed the facts on purpose and some people are OK with it.

 

The Federalist is a political site and goes overboard on their political agenda.

 

You would burn less wood and get more heat. I know from experience.

 

No you don't, you already passed judgement.
People don't need to explain jack Diddley on why or why not.
Just not wanting to is reason enough.
It's called freedom.

 

The problem occurs when one persons freedom impinges on anothers health. Burning more of anything (wood, gas, diesel, oil) then should be needed is bad for the planet. That is why the EPA has programs to help people buy more efficient burners (cars, stoves, furnaces).

As far as me having passed judgement, I apologize anf I will try to avoid that in the future, I am unfortunatly jilted by the environment I came from. I dealt with a lot of John Q public as an emissions inspector in Philadelphia. I had a lot of folks who would get mad at me because I would not pass their car.

Saying you do not need to explain a reason to keep your old stove because it is called freedom; you remind me of Korryn Gaines, the woman driving around with a peice of cardboard that said "Free Traveler" instead of a license plate. I am curious how you decide which laws to follow and which to ignore because they impinge on your freedoms.

 

My old stove put out way more heat then the new one but it was bigger, it was easier to run and more predictable also, my wood savings has come from making the house tighter.

 

Let's back up the truck and start over.
My only problem is the article posted by the OP purposely mislead the facts by stating they were going to take away their wood stoves when in fact they are just thinking about enforcing the law and make them use EPA stoves. I believe that is correct.
Now what in the world has you guys riled up???????????????

 

Now imagine going to a hybrid. You could probably cut your wood usage by another 1/3 or more now that your house is sealed up.

 

I have a 3 thousand dollar EPA stove sitting here collecting dust so not going there, my old stove is in my shop and I still prefer running it compared to my Drolet even though I like the Drolet.

 

I think thats what got it going.
People get very uptight when they hear the EPA is coming to help!

 

It does not help that they skewed the facts.
Some areas have big problems with the air pollution and it's not going away.

 

That explains that, there was an article a few years ago (survivalist site) that claimed the same thing.
Do they have to lie to make their point and hope no one checks the facts?

 

Have you ever tried to work with the EPA? I have had first hand experience and will share. It's the typical government agency. They are there to make themselves bigger and their own job security. Good and bad people in there as there is evcrywhere. Problem is, they have some power to abuse if they want to.

My experience stem from the agriculture side of it. EPA would come out with guidelines and cut off dates for THEIR regs to be in place. I'm referring to tank diking and spill containment. Some companies jumped on it and got it done but by the time the final dates came up they had changed the regs to where they were no compliant. No compensation or grandfather for what they had already expended. They want to throw stuff out there to get the ball rolling to make it look like they were doing something. Okay to be safe, but research it enough first to see the flaws in your plan. Don't put the first year grad in charge of the program at least.

From my experience, common sense was not a thing that was a priority there. Thus, you got everyone waiting to see what they changed before starting to comply. This was exactly the total opposite of what the original goal was. In all my years I have never heard anyone say that working with them was an enjoyable experience. Try it, you'll find out.

 

My point was the article sucked and so does the EPA.